Search This Blog

Sec.197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction whether can be considered at the inception stage or at any stage ? - Apex court held that when the allegations are in excess of official duties - Sanction is a conditional precedent for taking cognizance - in other cases it can be considered at any stage - In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. - Apex court set aside the orders of High court and orders of Trail court taking cognizance of the case - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction whether can be considered at the inception stage or at any stage ? - Apex court held that when the allegations are in excess of official duties - Sanction is a conditional precedent for taking cognizance - in other cases it can be considered at any stage - In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. - Apex court set aside the orders of High court and orders of Trail court taking cognizance of the case - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS the complainant was picked upfrom his garden land at about 10.00 a.m. on 6/6/2006 in the morning.Further averment reveals that this petitioner came to the police stationlater in the evening and detained him till 10.00 p.m. and also directedthat he should not be let-out till he reveals or confesses that he isinvolved in the murder of one Sannamma. These allegations in the complaintare further corroborated in the sworn statement of the complainant which isfurther fortified from the sworn statement of his two witnesses, namely,PWs. 2 and 3. The Court at this stage is required to consider only thesworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses to come to aconclusion whether a prima facie case is made out for registering the caseand issuing summonsThe question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on any stageof the proceedings, and in a given case, it may arise at the stage ofinception as held by this Court in Om Prakash To quote:“41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary ornot has to be decided from stage to stage. This question may arise at anystage of the proceeding. In a given case, it may arise at the inception.There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record whichmay establish at the outset that the police officer or public servant wasacting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protectiongiven under Section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for us to hold thatin such a case, the court cannot look into any documents produced by theaccused or the public servant concerned at the inception. The nature of thecomplaint may have to be kept in mind. It must be remembered that previoussanction is a precondition for taking cognizance of the offence and,therefore, there is no requirement that the accused must wait till thecharges are framed to raise this plea. ...”

In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded inexercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaultedthe respondent in order to extract some information with regard to thedeath of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detainedin the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has anessential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, whichis alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to actin discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary.Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the wholeallegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of acriminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with theperformance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learnedMagistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previoussanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial pointin the impugned order.The appeal is hence allowed. The impugned order by the High Court is setaside, so also, the proceedings initiated by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div) andJMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli, Karnataka in C.C. No. 74/2009taking cognizance and issuing process to the appellant. It is made clearthat our judgment is only on the issue of sanction and we have notconsidered the matter on merits and that this judgment shall not stand inthe way of respondent approaching the State Government for sanction underSection 197 of CrPC. In case such sanction is obtained and the same isproduced before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate may proceed furtherin the case in accordance with the law. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …